Veganism

[Disagreeable]

 You wanted to use human in the sense implied by my use of Liebniz's law as 'human' and also suggesting that in some sense organisms which don't satisfy Liebniz's law were also human.

No, I wasn't saying that both was the case or saying that one definition entailed another definition. I was asking which definition is correct or ought to be preferred. It's not an equivocation to say that we might wish to revise our definition of human. I wasn't conflating two different definitions at all. So I wasn't equivocating. I was questioning what the best, and most relevant, definition of a human is. And you still haven't answered my question asking you how you define human.

[Angrboda]

 You repeatedly asked me about this or that sub-property of being human and posited a possible significance.  If the supervening property is the only one that matters, nothing you do regarding sub-properties is relevant as none have any coin in this realm.

And my question is whether the property of being human *is* what's actually relevant or not. I've left both that being the case and that not being the case open to possibility.

Since you never actually asked the question, your not getting responses that you consider appropriate seems to have you as its proximal cause.

[Disagreeable]

And my question is whether the property of being human *is* what's actually relevant or not. I've left both that being the case and that not being the case open to possibility.

Since you never actually asked the question, your not getting responses that you consider appropriate seems to have you as its proximal cause.

I'll ask now: Is the property of being human what's morally relevant to whether it's impermissible or not to kill and eat a creature?

[Angrboda]

Since you never actually asked the question, your not getting responses that you consider appropriate seems to have you as its proximal cause.

I've asked plenty of times. Maybe not directly, though. But okay, regardless, I'll ask now: Is the property of being human what's morally relevant to whether it's impermissible or not to kill and eat a creature?

Go play in traffic.

[Disagreeable]

I've asked plenty of times. Maybe not directly, though. But okay, regardless, I'll ask now: Is the property of being human what's morally relevant to whether it's impermissible or not to kill and eat a creature?

Go play in traffic.

Mature and adult response on your part.

[Disagreeable]

Since you never actually asked the question, your not getting responses that you consider appropriate seems to have you as its proximal cause.

I'll ask now: Is the property of being human what's morally relevant to whether it's impermissible or not to kill and eat a creature?

I edited this post because I might not have actually asked the question, although I thought I did because I asked many similar questions.

Still, now that I definitely have asked the question, it wasn't answered. And a lot of the questions I did ask earlier weren't answered either. Instead I just got misinterpretation after misinterpretation, while my questions and clarifications were ignored.

Not by everybody, but by Angrboda at least.

Although, has anybody here answered the question: What is a human? Not sure if anybody here has answered that one yet.

But in all fairness, not everybody here was suggesting that the property of being human is what's morally significant to whether it's morally impermissible to kill and eat a creature or not.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've asked plenty of times. Maybe not directly, though. But okay, regardless, I'll ask now: Is the property of being human what's morally relevant to whether it's impermissible or not to kill and eat a creature?

Go play in traffic.

It sounds better in Yiddish: Gay kaken afn yam.

Boru

[Paleophyte]

Any species that fails to disuade its own commoditization invites its destruction. We have seen this demonstrated amply outside the context of death and devourment.

On a related note, has anybody tried the new Kirkland BBQ Babies? I find that they aren't as zesty as the free-range ones.

[Disagreeable]

Any species that fails to disuade its own commoditization invites its destruction.

Are you meant to be giving a normative implication here, or are you just making a descriptive claim?

[Paleophyte]

Stating a fact. Given that this is philosophy, that may constitute spamming on my part.